Development and implementation of Immersive Learning Simulations (ILS), or at least an understanding of their theoretical application, is paramount to professional faculty development and student success at institutions of higher education. ILS provide engaging environments in which to teach and learn in most academic disciplines. ILS range in style and function from more traditional online technology such as WebCTand Blackboardto more innovative technology such as Second Life (SL). SL is a multi-user 3-D environment in which users create representations of themselves called avatars. Throughout the experience, avatars interact and communicate with one another in real-time. SL is not a game as it does not have any specific goals or objectives (Hornick and Thornburg, 2010), although it does afford the opportunity to create games within the virtual space. Nearly 50 percent of higher education faculty use technology in the classroom in an effort to increase teaching effectiveness (Jennings and Collins, 2007). As technologies are implemented in traditional classroom environments by this community of digitally savvy educators, the remaining 50 percent become increasingly defensive about their own technological illiteracy, particularly when they consider the opinions of their students who are becoming more comfortable in their technological world (Prensky, 2007). Jennings and Collins (2007) have categorized higher education faculty into five groups based on the faculty member’s comfort level with technology and the likelihood of one’s adoption of instructional technology as a pedagogical tool.
Category of “Adopters”
Percent of Population
Definition
Innovators
2.5%
Truly interested in Technology. Understand hardware requirements and software. Form interdisciplinary communities based on technological interests.
Early Adopters
13.5%
Explore technology to expand on cutting edge instructional methods for teaching effectiveness. Interdisciplinary approach to teaching and research. Risk Takers.
Early Majority
34%
Seek technology to solve day-to-day problems in teaching and research. Implement technology based on the recommendation of departmental colleagues. Risk averse.
Late Majority
34%
Will use technology that is completely packaged and well-established. Not as tech savvy as previous groups. Generally works only within discipline.
Laggards
16%
Not likely to adopt technology into their pedagogy. Potentially confrontational with those who do use instructional technology.
We derive from this study that only 16 percent of higher education faculty are using advanced technology (which includes immersive, three-dimensional, multi-user environments such as Second Life) despite the fact that purveyors of progressive pedagogy recognize virtual environments as places that encourage the design of innovative pedagogic practices and change the delivery of traditional curriculum (Ho, 2010). Moreover, the implementation of innovative pedagogic practices facilitates an interdisciplinary academic discourse. Medical faculty have used SL to create role-playing scenarios for training medical professionals and Archaeologists have replicated cultures and societies in virtual spaces (Nie, Roush, & Wheeler, 2010). While these educators may not come together around individual research, they will form new communities of interdisciplinary communication around their applied use of ILS (Jennings and Collins, 2007). These interdisciplinary communities, comprised largely of “Innovators” (Jennings and Collins, 2007), will become more important in real-world higher education because pedagogical frameworks of student-learning in virtual environments like SL remain rare even as the demand for ILS becomes greater (Nie, et al., 2010). ILS also provides an opportunity for students to engage in exploratory learning, which involves learning through exploring environments with faculty and peer support. In traditional classroom settings, students are socialized to interact with the instructor rather than their peers. Through the creation of avatars and communicating by paralinguistic means, students experience a greater sense of agency and involvement in the learning experience (Ho, 2010). Furthermore, by engaging one another in a virtual world, students experience higher-level cognition and increased confidence (de Freitas, 2006; Ho, 2010), leading them to generate their own questions and responses as they engage one another in their virtual space (Ho, 2010). Increased student confidence in virtual worlds translates to better classroom performance in the real world. Students are more likely to remain engaged in course-related tasks for longer periods of time leading to the development of deep learning within their respective discipline (Hornik and Thornburg, 2010). Faculty have successfully incorporated ILS, in addition to other online educational technology such as Blackboard, into traditional and online classroom environments, regardless of their academic department. Communication students at California State University, Fullerton had the option to take that school’s visual communication course in either a traditional environment or online. Students who took the online course used a combination of Second Life and Blackboard. The instructor claimed that integration of both platforms was relatively easy because of student familiarity with chat room technology. Moreover, the instructor concluded that students taking the course online were more thoughtful and insightful in their communication with one another because they were forced to think before they typed responses to one another. Working in a virtual environment also allowed students to overcome any shyness that they might encounter in a face-to-face classroom setting (Lester & King, 2009). History faculty are using ILS for research presentation and teaching. For traditionally bibliophile historians, ILS are pedagogically effective. Historians can use this technology to facilitate story-telling and group networking, which positively adds to the learning experience. For young students of history, ILS can provide real-world immersion in the historical past, not previously possible in the teaching of history (Allison, 2008). These examples of ILS in educational environments are but a few of the many ways that new and evolving technologies are being used in various academic disciplines. Accountants, architects and artists are all finding new teaching spaces in virtual places. As faculty avail themselves to the technology and administrators insist that it be implemented, many of the fears and concerns about navigating this unfamiliar terrain will subside. Critics will no doubt continue to disparage ILS as nothing more than games and distractions, but those who use it well and participate in the growing community of innovators and early adopters will lead the pedagogical revolution of the 21st Century. References:
Allison, J. (2008). History Educators and the Challenge of Immersive Pasts: A Critical View of Virtual Reality Tools and History Pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology 33(4), 343-352. de Freitas, S.I. (2006). Using Games and Simulations for Supporting Learning. Learning, Media and Technology 31(4), 343-358. Ho, C. (2010). What’s in a Question? The case of student’s enactments in the Second Life virtual world. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 4(2), 151-176. Hornik, S. and Thornburg, S. (2010). Really Engaging Accounting: Second Life as a Learning Platform. Issues in Accounting Education 25(3), 361-378. Inman, C., Wright, V., and Hartman, J. (2010). Use of Second Life in K-12 and Higher Education: A Review of Research. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 9(1), 44-63. Jennings, N. and Collins, C. (2007). Virtual or Virtually U: Educational Institutions in Second Life. International Journal of Social Sciences 2(3), 180-186. Lester, P. and King, C. (2009). Analog vs. Digital Instruction and Learning: Teaching within First and Second Life Environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14, 457-483. Nie, M., Roush, P. and Wheeler, M. (2010). Second Life for Digital Photography: An Exploratory Study. Contemporary Educational Technology 1(3), 267-280. Prensky, M.(2007). How to Teach with Technology: Keeping Both Teachers and Students Comfortable in an Era of Exponential Change. In Emerging Technologies of Learning (pp.40-46). Coventry, UK: Becta. Storey, V. and Wolf, A.A. (2010). Utilizing the Platform of Second Life to Teach Future Educators. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning 6(1), 58-70.
SL is a multi-user 3-D environment in which users create representations of themselves called avatars. Throughout the experience, avatars interact and communicate with one another in real-time. SL is not a game as it does not have any specific goals or objectives (Hornick and Thornburg, 2010), although it does afford the opportunity to create games within the virtual space.
Nearly 50 percent of higher education faculty use technology in the classroom in an effort to increase teaching effectiveness (Jennings and Collins, 2007). As technologies are implemented in traditional classroom environments by this community of digitally savvy educators, the remaining 50 percent become increasingly defensive about their own technological illiteracy, particularly when they consider the opinions of their students who are becoming more comfortable in their technological world (Prensky, 2007).
Jennings and Collins (2007) have categorized higher education faculty into five groups based on the faculty member’s comfort level with technology and the likelihood of one’s adoption of instructional technology as a pedagogical tool.
We derive from this study that only 16 percent of higher education faculty are using advanced technology (which includes immersive, three-dimensional, multi-user environments such as Second Life) despite the fact that purveyors of progressive pedagogy recognize virtual environments as places that encourage the design of innovative pedagogic practices and change the delivery of traditional curriculum (Ho, 2010).
Moreover, the implementation of innovative pedagogic practices facilitates an interdisciplinary academic discourse. Medical faculty have used SL to create role-playing scenarios for training medical professionals and Archaeologists have replicated cultures and societies in virtual spaces (Nie, Roush, & Wheeler, 2010). While these educators may not come together around individual research, they will form new communities of interdisciplinary communication around their applied use of ILS (Jennings and Collins, 2007). These interdisciplinary communities, comprised largely of “Innovators” (Jennings and Collins, 2007), will become more important in real-world higher education because pedagogical frameworks of student-learning in virtual environments like SL remain rare even as the demand for ILS becomes greater (Nie, et al., 2010).
ILS also provides an opportunity for students to engage in exploratory learning, which involves learning through exploring environments with faculty and peer support. In traditional classroom settings, students are socialized to interact with the instructor rather than their peers. Through the creation of avatars and communicating by paralinguistic means, students experience a greater sense of agency and involvement in the learning experience (Ho, 2010). Furthermore, by engaging one another in a virtual world, students experience higher-level cognition and increased confidence (de Freitas, 2006; Ho, 2010), leading them to generate their own questions and responses as they engage one another in their virtual space (Ho, 2010). Increased student confidence in virtual worlds translates to better classroom performance in the real world. Students are more likely to remain engaged in course-related tasks for longer periods of time leading to the development of deep learning within their respective discipline (Hornik and Thornburg, 2010).
Faculty have successfully incorporated ILS, in addition to other online educational technology such as Blackboard, into traditional and online classroom environments, regardless of their academic department. Communication students at California State University, Fullerton had the option to take that school’s visual communication course in either a traditional environment or online. Students who took the online course used a combination of Second Life and Blackboard. The instructor claimed that integration of both platforms was relatively easy because of student familiarity with chat room technology. Moreover, the instructor concluded that students taking the course online were more thoughtful and insightful in their communication with one another because they were forced to think before they typed responses to one another. Working in a virtual environment also allowed students to overcome any shyness that they might encounter in a face-to-face classroom setting (Lester & King, 2009).
History faculty are using ILS for research presentation and teaching. For traditionally bibliophile historians, ILS are pedagogically effective. Historians can use this technology to facilitate story-telling and group networking, which positively adds to the learning experience. For young students of history, ILS can provide real-world immersion in the historical past, not previously possible in the teaching of history (Allison, 2008).
These examples of ILS in educational environments are but a few of the many ways that new and evolving technologies are being used in various academic disciplines. Accountants, architects and artists are all finding new teaching spaces in virtual places. As faculty avail themselves to the technology and administrators insist that it be implemented, many of the fears and concerns about navigating this unfamiliar terrain will subside. Critics will no doubt continue to disparage ILS as nothing more than games and distractions, but those who use it well and participate in the growing community of innovators and early adopters will lead the pedagogical revolution of the 21st Century.
References:
Allison, J. (2008). History Educators and the Challenge of Immersive Pasts: A Critical View of Virtual Reality Tools and History Pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology 33(4), 343-352.
de Freitas, S.I. (2006). Using Games and Simulations for Supporting Learning. Learning, Media and Technology 31(4), 343-358.
Ho, C. (2010). What’s in a Question? The case of student’s enactments in the Second Life virtual world. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 4(2), 151-176.
Hornik, S. and Thornburg, S. (2010). Really Engaging Accounting: Second Life as a Learning Platform. Issues in Accounting Education 25(3), 361-378.
Inman, C., Wright, V., and Hartman, J. (2010). Use of Second Life in K-12 and Higher Education: A Review of Research. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 9(1), 44-63.
Jennings, N. and Collins, C. (2007). Virtual or Virtually U: Educational Institutions in Second Life. International Journal of Social Sciences 2(3), 180-186.
Lester, P. and King, C. (2009). Analog vs. Digital Instruction and Learning: Teaching within First and Second Life Environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14, 457-483.
Nie, M., Roush, P. and Wheeler, M. (2010). Second Life for Digital Photography: An Exploratory Study. Contemporary Educational Technology 1(3), 267-280.
Prensky, M.(2007). How to Teach with Technology: Keeping Both Teachers and Students Comfortable in an Era of Exponential Change. In Emerging Technologies of Learning (pp.40-46). Coventry, UK: Becta.
Storey, V. and Wolf, A.A. (2010). Utilizing the Platform of Second Life to Teach Future Educators. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning 6(1), 58-70.